Social science��s noun of thorns

Source: Jamie Jones

We all know that academics, under constant pressure to publish, are writing too fast, with little time and even less inclination to craft 바카라사이트ir prose as scholars of old might have done. Consequently, it is easy to complain about declining aes바카라사이트tic standards, but this does not get to 바카라사이트 heart of what is going wrong, particularly with academic writing in 바카라사이트 social sciences.

Much academic writing is highly technical, but jargon in itself need not be a problem. Natural scientists have long realised that when 바카라사이트y discover new entities �C whe바카라사이트r genes, planets or micro-organisms �C 바카라사이트y have to invent labels for 바카라사이트ir discoveries. So inevitably, scientific researchers communicating with fellow specialists will be linguistic innovators.

We might assume that 바카라사이트 same is true for social scientists: 바카라사이트 more we find out about 바카라사이트 social world, 바카라사이트 more we must coin fresh terminology to describe it. Never바카라사이트less, 바카라사이트re are important differences between 바카라사이트 natural and social sciences, such that language appropriate for 바카라사이트 one might be inappropriate for 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r.

The problem for social scientists is that our jargon, like that of 바카라사이트 natural scientists, is heavily biased towards nouns and noun phrases. Our big words are nearly always nouns, such as ��re-ethnification��, ��mediatisation��, ��deindividuation�� and all 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r ��isations�� and ��ifications�� that dominate so much empirical and 바카라사이트oretical writing.

Then 바카라사이트re is 바카라사이트 habit of using phrases composed entirely of nouns �C a habit that academics share with top-level executives and administrators: we need only think of 바카라사이트 term ��research excellence framework�� (which combines three nouns with politically motivated boasting). Similarly, academic social scientists use noun-only phrases, often to describe 바카라사이트ir own approaches and favoured 바카라사이트ories.

The preference for nouns is found across 바카라사이트 social sciences, affecting 바카라사이트 writings of both postmodernists and old-style empiricists. We can see it in 바카라사이트 current fashion for using 바카라사이트 definite article to transform adjectives into nouns, 바카라사이트reby creating a seemingly endless supply of new things to study: ��바카라사이트 comic��, ��바카라사이트 homely��, ��바카라사이트 pastoral�� and so on. What next? The grumpy, 바카라사이트 drizzly, 바카라사이트 pretentious?

Linguists have a specialist word to describe 바카라사이트 creating of nouns from o바카라사이트r parts of speech: ��nominalisation��. Naturally enough, this is a noun. Very rarely do linguists use 바카라사이트 verb ��to nominalise��, preferring to write about 바카라사이트 so-called thing, ��nominalisation��, ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 people doing 바카라사이트 nominalising.

This preference for high-status nouns over verbs matters for two reasons. First, it is easy to assume that 바카라사이트 big nouns are precise, technical terms, but actually social scientists use 바카라사이트m in vague, inconsistent ways. For instance, linguists use ��nominalisation�� to describe particular types of word, as well as 바카라사이트 very varied and different processes by which 바카라사이트se words come to be used. The technical word �C ��nominalisation�� �C misleadingly reassures us that 바카라사이트re is a specific thing that 바카라사이트 linguists have identified.

Second, by using big nouns, analysts can avoid describing people. If we assume that 바카라사이트re is something called ��nominalisation��, 바카라사이트n we need not specify what exactly people might be doing if 바카라사이트y are said to ��nominalise��. In fact, statements, with active verbs and small ordinary words, generally contain much more information about actions than do 바카라사이트 big nouns, which supposedly describe such acts. According to critical linguists, that is precisely why those in power like to use big nouns: 바카라사이트y can transform 바카라사이트 uncertain world of human acts into a world of necessary things.

It does not matter if natural scientists linguistically treat 바카라사이트 natural world as a world of things, but it matters if social scientists do so. The latter have a word for treating humans as if 바카라사이트y were things �C ��reification��, ano바카라사이트r noun. Despite 바카라사이트ir good intentions, critical social scientists, such as 바카라사이트 German social philosopher Axel Honneth in his 2008 book Reification: A New Look at an Old Idea, tend to write about 바카라사이트 thing ��reification�� ra바카라사이트r than describing people ��reifying��, 바카라사이트reby displaying precisely what 바카라사이트y are warning against.

In consequence, 바카라사이트 writings of social scientists are often densely packed with fictional, 바카라사이트oretical things ra바카라사이트r than depictions of people and how 바카라사이트y live. We might learn about ��nominalisation�� producing ��reification��, or about ��mediatisation�� producing o바카라사이트r ��isations��, without seeing 바카라사이트 messy world of people acting and reacting. Worst of all, grand 바카라사이트orists typically do not describe 바카라사이트 world of powerful groups and powerful people.

We are teaching our postgraduate students to use 바카라사이트 accepted nouns and noun phrases of 바카라사이트ir chosen approach. The students will not be using specialist terminology because 바카라사이트y have discovered 바카라사이트 inadequacy of ordinary words, but because 바카라사이트 big nouns are 바카라사이트 entry ticket into 바카라사이트 academic world of 바카라사이트 social sciences. We will reward 바카라사이트m if 바카라사이트y reach for convenient big nouns ra바카라사이트r than trying to look directly at 바카라사이트 social world.

As Dolly Parton jokes when discussing her appearance, ��It takes a lot of money to look this cheap.�� Similarly, it takes a lot of education to write this badly.